Commenting Rules

Readers are welcome to post comments on the material posted here, but some simple rules apply:

No trolls allowed

I reserve the right to refuse comments.

This site is meant to express my point of view. If you are looking for a soapbox to promote your own views, create your own website or blog site.

Comments should be brief (preferably under 100 words), polite, constructive and informed.

Comments which are simply attacks on myself, or are done in bad taste, or use rude language, or are possibly defamatory will not be posted.

You must state your full name to have your comments posted.

I may reply to some of your comments but will not be able to respond to all.

If you are happy to abide by these rules, then by all means, send in your comments. Happy writing!

Greens Guilty of Gross Discrimination

May 21, 2012

Shame on those intolerant, bigoted and hate-filled Greens. They are a disgrace. Instead of being open, inclusive and tolerant, they are just redneck haters who are denying lovers their dreams. How dare they exclude so many people from their basic right to love and marry?

They have come out and made it perfectly clear that they are not at all into real marriage equality. They want to use the ugly arm of the law to push their narrow and reactionary agenda. They actually say they will prevent loving and committed polyamorists from marrying. Unbelievable! And in this day and age! We have so far moved beyond the 1950s, yet we still find this bigoted and ugly intolerance to real love.

This is 2012 for heaven’s sake. When will the fundamentalist, archaic and clearly fossilised Greens get with the times? How dare they prevent those in love from their full rights? This is just such a horrific case of irrational discrimination and despicable bigotry.

As the press reports today, they are living in prehistoric times: “The Greens have declared they have a clear policy against support for polyamorous marriage as they pursue their case for same-sex marriage. Greens marriage equality spokeswoman Senator Sarah Hanson-Young has declared the Greens have a clear policy against support for polyamorous marriage. ‘Our bill clearly states marriage “between TWO consenting adults” and that is the Greens’ position. No, we don’t support polyamorous marriage – the only person who seems to want to talk about this is Senator Cash.’

“It comes after Senator Michaelia Cash, Liberal Senator for WA, today challenged the Australian Greens to state their position on polyamorous marriage. This follows the disclosure that polyamorists have made submissions to the Greens’ Senate Inquiry on Marriage Equality. ‘Sarah Hanson-Young must explain whether she does support “marriage for all”, as advocated by the Greens, who wish to “legislate to allow marriage regardless of sexuality or gender identity”,’ Senator Cash said. ‘Using these benchmarks it would really be a case of “anything goes”’.”

And just in case you think there are no such beasts as polyamorists, think again. They are all over the place, and gaining momentum every day. Strengthened by what they see the homosexual militants getting away with, they are demanding their “rights” as well, using the exact same arguments as the homosexual lobby.

An interesting piece in today’s Australian is yet just one more example of all this: “The power couple of Australia’s increasingly open polyamorous community, Rebecca and James Dominguez, have made Senate submissions urging the legalisation of same-sex marriage, as they promote greater acceptance of multiple-partner relationships. The couple have led the way in publicly outlining their own journey from monogamous marriage to one in which each has another lover as well.

“In her blog, Ms Dominguez, who is an administrator with IBM in Melbourne, writes: ‘My life rocks . . . I am incredibly happy and have almost everything I could possibly want . . . I’ve built a house with my husband and my husband’s boyfriend so there are four of us living together in nice harmony. (The fourth household member is Rebecca’s boyfriend.)

“‘James outed himself to me as bisexual a year after we got married. Remarkably, this didn’t really phase me. He talked to a nice female friend of ours that was interested in him, informed her about my boundaries and they agreed to have a sexual relationship. I felt more secure in my relationship with James . . . I knew that James wasn’t going to leave me, that he could have sex with and love another woman and still love me and want to be married to me.’

“For many years Ms Dominguez was president of PolyVic, which promoted the ‘practice of honest, open, ethical multiple relationships’. More recently the couple have taken up leading positions in Bisexual Alliance Victoria. The two organisations are closely connected and hold picnics which, the website says, are family-friendly with ‘food and drinks to share, picnic rugs or chairs, outdoor games, kids, dogs, kayaks’.

“As president of the alliance, Mr Dominguez, an IT specialist in the Victorian public service, wrote to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee in support of the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2010. ‘The legal definition of marriage itself has changed over history, such as the removal on restrictions of inter-racial marriage and the provision for divorce,’ Mr Dominguez wrote in the submission.

“Ms Dominguez wrote in her own submission to the Senate committee: ‘Just as we have allowed changes in the past to things considered “traditional” (equality of women, humanity of non-white people), we can change “traditional” understandings of things now’.”

Now why is it that these “arguments” sound so very, very familiar? Oh yeah, they are the exact same “arguments” being used by the pro-homosexual marriage crowd. Absolutely identical. The reasoning for polyamory and group marriage is 100% identical to the reasoning for homosexual marriage.

Once you throw out the fundamental core criteria of marriage (proper gender, proper number, etc) then of course anything goes. And we are seeing this played out before our very eyes at this very moment. And all along the homosexual activists have the gall to mock those who warn of a slippery slope, as they claim that group marriage and other combinations will never be demanded.

But if you are still not convinced of the double standards and fractured reasoning of the Greens and others, let me take this a bit further. Let me show again how the Greens are the most bigoted, discriminatory and rights-denying party around. Consider this: what if I wanted to become a member of the Greens today?

Well, on the Greens’ membership form it says that everyone must sign this declaration: “I am not a member of another political party and will not join another political party while I am a member of The Greens. I agree to abide by the Charter and Constitution of the Australian Greens, and the Constitution of my state/territory party. I acknowledge that my membership is subject to approval by The Greens party in the state/territory where I reside.”

Hey, wait a minute. What kind of gross discrimination and intolerance is this? I deplore the Greens, I do not believe in anything they stand for, and I am happy to align myself with other political parties. So they won’t let me become a member. How intolerant is that?

And I even have to abide by their Charter and Constitution? I can’t believe it. This is just so blatantly wrong and discriminatory. Why can’t I join the Greens, even though I refuse to abide by any of their rules and regulations? Why am I being denied my human rights to join these guys?

Oh, but the Greens will argue that to so bend the rules in this manner would make a mockery of the Greens, and in fact undermine it and destroy it. By allowing anyone in, it redefines the group out of existence. Thus obviously the Greens cannot tear down their own rules and criteria, just to take in those who are bent on destroying it.

Hey, that sounds like perfectly good reasoning to me Greens. I can see real common sense and rationality there. It is a type of discrimination, obviously, but a very vital, necessary and healthy one if the Greens are to survive. Such proper discrimination must of course stand.

Er, wait a minute. Have I not heard this argument before? Oh yeah, I have: I and others have made it countless times. We have said exactly the same thing about the institution of heterosexual marriage. Indeed, in case things are not quite clear, let me just substitute a few words here and say all that over again:

“Oh, but the pro-marriage folks will argue that to so bend the rules in this manner would make a mockery of marriage, and in fact undermine it and destroy it. By allowing anyone in, it redefines the institution out of existence. Thus obviously pro-marriage folks cannot tear down their own rules and criteria, just to take in those who are bent on destroying it.

“Hey, that sounds like perfectly good reasoning to me. I can see real common sense and rationality there. It is a type of discrimination, obviously, but a very vital, necessary and healthy one if marriage is to survive. Such proper discrimination must of course stand.”

Wow, the utter and total hypocrisy and double standards of the Greens are simply mind-boggling here. When we rightly argue that to throw out the gender requirement of marriage is to redefine it and destroy it, the Greens foam at the mouth and scream about discrimination, hate and bigotry.

Yet when polyamorists want in to the institution of marriage as well, or I want in to the Greens party, we are both denied our rights, and told these rules cannot change. They are so blind to their own utter duplicity and irrationality here that they cannot even see how they shoot themselves in the foot every time they open their mouths.

Hypocrites all right. Blatant double standards all right. But what do we expect from the moonbats in the Greens party? What do us mere “earthians” know about anything? Obviously our mental and moral reasoning abilities are in a different league from theirs. And maybe that’s a very good thing too.

The thing with this is that the Greens and their supporters would claim you are misrepresenting or twisting their position. But that is not the truth. They simply refuse to face up to the ramifications of their own ‘logic’.
Mark Rabich

The Greens, or rather Reds are stuck in their 19th century Darwinianism with all its superstitious mumbo jumbo about Piltdown and Java man, Hitler’s Aryan man and Kertbenny’s homosexual and heterosexual men. They are incapable of moving onto towards the future but are stuck in their fossilised and out of date evolutionary ideology.

The homosexuals argue that the human right to exclude those who espouse and practise straight sex and pure marriage is so that they can maintain their distinct identity of being queer. If they let straight people into their premises they would dilute the purity of queer relationships!

They also appeal to the fact that because they have come under so much bullying and hatred that they should be given special protection, a fair crack of the whip (we wish!) to develop, like some hot house plant in special need of love and care.

Just read the following extract from a gay article and understand the delirium tremens – like effects on the gay mind when it withdraws from the world of reality:

“But even if you’re convinced by that, surely (I hear you cry) you couldn’t have anti-discrimination laws which allow some clubs to refuse entrance to straight people, but not B&B owners to refuse a double room to gay people? But why not? It’s already perfectly legal for rape crisis centres and women’s refuges to specify in recruitment ads that their support workers have to be female. Sure, gay clubs aren’t offering quite as vital a service as rape crisis centres do, but the principle’s pretty similar. Society is better off with gay clubs than without them, and without some means of ensuring that their clientele is mainly LGBT, they would cease to function as gay clubs. B&Bs, on the other hand, don’t cease to function as B&Bs if same-sex couples patronise them and choose to share beds, and any Christians who run those B&Bs don’t cease to be Christians if they permit it.
It’s important to emphasise that this categorically isn’t a libertarian argument; I don’t think gay clubs should be allowed to have discriminatory admissions policies just because they’re private businesses, I think they should be allowed to do so because it’s beneficial for society to have safe spaces for LGBT people. And the right to a place where you can associate with like-minded people and be yourself certainly needn’t just apply to the LGBT community; if the Bulls wanted to exclude gay couples from a prayer meeting they were holding, they’d be perfectly entitled to do so. But that’s a very different proposition from running a B&B.”

I saw recently on a Jerry Springer show, a case of man who, knowingly married a bisexual woman, got very upset when his wife demanded that he share her with her sister. So here we have not only bisexuality but incest thrown in as well.

Well, they believe in diversity. So why should anyone put boundaries around the way people can be together in passionate. healthy and fulfilling relationships? !!!

The Greens should remember that they are dealing with the LGBTI community here. Their homosexual marriage legislation benefits the L’s and the G’s, but discriminates against the B’s. The only way a Bisexual can be properly sexually fulfilled is if they can marry both a man and a woman simultaneously. If marriage is for 2 adults only, Bisexuals are forced to make a choice between their desire for a man and their desire for a woman. What an injustice!
Jereth Kok

Bill, another well reasoned discussion, makes perfect sense to me, but sorry, I am only a mere member of the Australian society who is trying to raise a family that will one day benefit this society, what would I know about ‘healthy’ relationships and whats right and whats wrong they tell me?

I have had this argument too many times too recall and now as you have well observed, the fruit of allowing even the consideration for changing marriage is coming forth. It going to be interesting to see how the Greens play this one. How dare they be so ‘Intolerant’!!!

Very interesting article.
It is indeed hypocritical to permit same-sex marriages but reject polyamorous marriages – at least from a traditional Judeo-Christian perspective where both are clearly permitted.
Just not sure why we would expect the secular Greens to follow our Holy Bible.
Alan Austin

Thanks Alan, but I must call your bluff here. Obviously because we live in a fallen world, and because God is extremely gracious and patient, all sorts of things are “permitted” every day: rapes, murders, genocide. But permission of course does not equal endorsement. Nor does description equal prescription. All sorts of stuff is described in Scripture but certainly not recommended or praised. Any first year Bible student knows these basic and elementary truths.

God’s plan for human sexuality is crystal clear, with heterosexual marriage being God’s normative plan for mankind. That clear teaching runs throughout the Bible. Only those pushing agendas or smothered in humanist nonsense fail to understand this.

Sorry, nice try – cutesy and all that – but fail. Please go to the back of the class.

Apart from Alan’s F-grade biblical knowledge, he also doesn’t seem to understand that it is the internal logic of the Greens stated position that is at issue here. It is quite brilliantly hypocritical on its own – showing that the arguments for same-sex ‘marriage’ are a sham – without reference to anything else.
Mark Rabich

I wish the LNP had such stringent requirements for membership. If they had, people like Malcolm Turnbull and Barry O’Farrell may have been refused membership. Now the party’s values are so hollowed out that it is hardly recognisable and almost unable to offer constructive opposition or alternative leadership to the Labour-Green coalition except in their fiscal management.
I pray Tony Abbott can have some decisive influence there.
Many blessings
Ursula Bennett

Don’t worry, Bill, they will “evolve” in time, just like Obama did. At the moment supporting Polyamory is probably not a vote winner, but wait till public opinion has been suitably shaped into the likeness of their beliefs and then they can “come out” with their evolving opinion and they might even call it “a road to Damascus experience”?
Anything goes where anything goes.
Many blessings
Ursula Bennett

I find it humorous that people like our friend Alan here couldn’t actually give a rip about what the bible says and will scoff at it at every opportunity. Yet, he has the nerve to explain to us how the bible should be interpreted.

Yes quite right. Indeed, ‘our friend’ has come back with more sheer nonsense, demonstrating what we already suspected – he is just a theological liberal and revisionist masquerading as a biblical Christian. He has completely rejected the Word of God while totally embracing the radical homosexual agenda. He even dares to speak about a “reformation” taking places in the churches regarding homosexual marriage. What he euphemistically calls a “reformation” is of course nothing other than plain old apostasy. Talk about a reprobate mind, as Paul speaks of in Romans 1.

But as my commenting rules make clear, those pushing their radical agendas can do it all they like elsewhere. I won’t allow their deceit and poison onto this site. Indeed, I deal with all this baloney carefully in my book, so I am not about to rehash all the arguments here.

Bill, for once I have to disagree with you – your comment above “Obviously our mental and moral reasoning abilities are in a different league from theirs. And maybe that’s a very good thing too.” Not maybe, but definitely! Just being facetious mate, terrific article!
Steve Davis

Thanks Bill for setting Alan straight so well. I had quite a lengthy discussion and he admitted he considered anal sex natural, and accepted that it was all genetic. This kind of reasoning can lead to saying paedophilia is also genetic, and lead to the claim that Jesus and the disciples were sodomites. Yet he is claiming to be a biblical Christian! God Bless your ministry!
Lukas Butler

I have emailed Green Senators and asked them questions about what they said or believed but have never had a reply. Does that mean I am being discriminated against by them because I have asked the wrong questions or does that mean I have asked the right questions which they don’t want to answer?

Perhaps the questions do not come within the bounds of their charter or constitution? Is there a clause in them that says “though shalt not answer questions if it means that we have to admit that what we say is indefensible.”

About CultureWatch

We live in an age where we see evidence of cultural decline, the erosion of values, the decline of civility, the denial of truth and the elevation of unreason. Many people are asking, “Where is our culture heading?” This website is devoted to exploring the major cultural, social and political issues of the day. It offers reflection and commentary drawing upon the wealth of wisdom found in the Judeo-Christian tradition. It offers reflective and incisive commentary on a wide range of issues, helping to sort through the maze of competing opinions, worldviews, ideologies and value systems. It will discuss critically and soberly where our culture is heading. Happy reading!